The voters in the State of Missouri passed a resolution last Tuesday which says, basically, that the Obama health care initiative does not apply to them. Many other states, perhaps up to the three-fourths needed to amend the Constitution, are considering or have passed motions through their legislatures claiming the same thing. All of this is background noise to arguably more shrill issues: Arizona and illegal immigrants, perhaps the entire Tea party movement, and the recent talk about modifying the 14th Amendment. We may even throw in the gay marriage thing, as Article the Fifth says that states must respect the public acts of other states. All of this points in one direction: the chance of a genuine Constitutional crisis which may rock our nation profoundly.
We need one, quite frankly, and it can happen without the destruction of our proud country if all parties agree to be reasonable. But a showdown with the Federal Government may be necessary if the states are ever again going to be able to resume their proper role in our constitutional scheme. We need the States to reassert their rights. We need the people to reassert theirs.
At one point in our history there was a movement for what was termed nullification. The idea was that individual states could decide for themselves whether a federal dictum applied to them. That is essentially what some locales are claiming today.
It is admittedly difficult to know where exactly to draw the line. Indeed we realize that something such as nullification is fraught with peril: anyone may claim it on any issue which they find critical. Still, when Washington holds all the cards as they currently do, are there any options besides pushing the bonds which bind the United States to their limits?
Liberals will say: appeal to the courts, or elect new messengers to the Congress if you feel that way. But as with most things, talk is cheap. Especially when you are the card dealer. We only need to look at recent actions to see that such an appeal is unlikely to work: the courts have struck down California's gay marriage ban and the supposed worst of Arizona's recent laws aimed at illegal immigrants. Do you really think they will abide by the actions of a conservative Congress? No; they will go to the courts if a new Congress thwarts them, because it's what liberals do when they can't get their way otherwise (and by that we mean, through the legitimate legislative process). They have no true respect for law; they have no real respect for the Constitution, which they twist and squeeze in seeking to make it appear to support their wants. Then they have the unmitigated gall to accuse the right of tampering with it when it proposes amendments. It's hypocrisy on two counts: telling us to go to the courts when they know they've a system in place which tends to support them, then acting as though the 'living' Constitution can't be changed if a change should gore their preferred oxen. Things change, liberals: embrace and accept it. That's what you always tell us.
How they will fight change when they don't like it. But we also go beyond our immediate argument in pointing that out. The bottom line here is that the States have rights too; the People as well. Isn't that the whole point of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? Why doesn't the left see the value of them? Merely because they think any action regulated or initiated by the Federals as automatically superior to any action initiated by a State or Individual. Any why? Because, as our history has thus far developed, that's where the power is, and it's all about power.
It is time to fight back. It is time for the power of the people to rear its head and make Washington tow the line. It is time for the States to reassert themselves in this Constitutional scheme of ours and fight for their rights as States. It is all well and good to recognize federal authority where it legitimately rests. It is the end of our history as a free people to give it a free pass or free reign.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
Kagan's confirmation means little
Elena Kagan will become the 112th Justice on our Supreme Court. But that is not a surprise. With an overwhelming Democratic majority in the Senate, President Obama could have nominated Kermit the Frog and he would have been accepted with praise. It is the next Justice who will truly alter the Court. All we can do is hope and pray that the selection will not come until, at least after this fall's mid-term elections, if not until after a new Republican president in January 2013.
That isn't a very outlandish scenario at this point. President Obama is looking more and more like Jimmy Carter: a flash in the pan out of his element. Only, perhaps, worse, if the expected drubbing of the Democrats actually materializes this November. The President would never get Kagan past a GOP Senate with such a solid majority as the Democrats enjoy today.
That is, if the Republicans have finally learned the lesson that it's okay to employ power when you have it. The GOP must realize that any Democratic calls for quarter, for reaching across the aisle, when they are out of power are mere charades. Democrats never, ever, ask for conciliation or consideration for Republican views when the left holds the cards. The whole health care debate has shown us as much, and history is rife with left wing power plays when they hold the reigns.
If you get the broad majority we currently expect in November, use it, GOP. The Democrats do not care what you think when you're in the minority. Ignore them when you're in the majority. That ain't sour grapes. That's the politics of raw power, and the left needs a strong dose of that bitter medicine.
That isn't a very outlandish scenario at this point. President Obama is looking more and more like Jimmy Carter: a flash in the pan out of his element. Only, perhaps, worse, if the expected drubbing of the Democrats actually materializes this November. The President would never get Kagan past a GOP Senate with such a solid majority as the Democrats enjoy today.
That is, if the Republicans have finally learned the lesson that it's okay to employ power when you have it. The GOP must realize that any Democratic calls for quarter, for reaching across the aisle, when they are out of power are mere charades. Democrats never, ever, ask for conciliation or consideration for Republican views when the left holds the cards. The whole health care debate has shown us as much, and history is rife with left wing power plays when they hold the reigns.
If you get the broad majority we currently expect in November, use it, GOP. The Democrats do not care what you think when you're in the minority. Ignore them when you're in the majority. That ain't sour grapes. That's the politics of raw power, and the left needs a strong dose of that bitter medicine.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Pot Shots on August 5th
A federal court has overruled California's Proposition 8, which disallowed gay marriage. It's just another example of how liberals are all for democracy and the will of the people...until the people disagree with them. Then we haul the issue into the courts. The courts, of course, as no less of a civil libertarian than Thomas Jefferson has noted, offer the greatest threat to our true freedoms. Especially when they begin to be used to enforce upon the body politic pure abominations.
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick has lost the Democratic Primary for the seat she has held in Congress for years. It seems that the apron strings can stretch a very long way; no one doubts that her name association with her infamous son has caused her downfall. Blood is thicker than politics, apparently.
A British group claims that a glass of beer per day, rather than a glass of wine, will burn more calories than a 30 minute jog. We don't care about the scratch your head factor which such statements invite: the bottom line here is that just when you think that England has become unimportant in the world, they give us reason to respect them again. Any nation which touts beer drinking as healthy is a good and grand ally in our book.
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick has lost the Democratic Primary for the seat she has held in Congress for years. It seems that the apron strings can stretch a very long way; no one doubts that her name association with her infamous son has caused her downfall. Blood is thicker than politics, apparently.
A British group claims that a glass of beer per day, rather than a glass of wine, will burn more calories than a 30 minute jog. We don't care about the scratch your head factor which such statements invite: the bottom line here is that just when you think that England has become unimportant in the world, they give us reason to respect them again. Any nation which touts beer drinking as healthy is a good and grand ally in our book.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Change the 14th Amendment: Fix the Constitution
The 14th Amendment needs to be changed so that we alter the Constitutional nature of birthright citizenship. This is a good and necessary change which is long overdue.
As things are, any child born in the United States is entitled to US citizenship. But this begs the very important question of whether their parents are themselves here legally. Quite frankly, there is nothing immoral, not one little bit, about denying citizenship privileges to the offspring of illegals. Their children are not entitled to it simply and perhaps solely for the reason that they should not have been here to be born in first place.
Such birthright privileges are not fundamental rights. The United States, just like any other nation, has both the right to set reasonable citizenship qualifications as well as to alter its basic law, so long as a true moral evil is not involved. This is nowhere near a moral wrong.
Democrats don't like this idea, as the presumption is that many illegals support them. All right, illegals and their children may lean Democrat. If so, then such becomes another important issue: those not here legally have no right to influence our political system regardless of their personal philosophical leaning. Such things are, at the least, improper and at the most, downright immoral. No non-American citizen has the right to influence the direction of our country. To our libertarian friends we ask: is this really any different than the US attempting to interfere with the internal workings of other countries?
This is not xenophobic. Anyone who wants to become an American citizen who is no threat to our nation ought to be allowed to become citizens: relatively open borders are not a bad thing. But come in through the front door. Because coming in through the back is itself suspect behavior, and grounds alone for denying anyone the rights of legal citizenship.
As things are, any child born in the United States is entitled to US citizenship. But this begs the very important question of whether their parents are themselves here legally. Quite frankly, there is nothing immoral, not one little bit, about denying citizenship privileges to the offspring of illegals. Their children are not entitled to it simply and perhaps solely for the reason that they should not have been here to be born in first place.
Such birthright privileges are not fundamental rights. The United States, just like any other nation, has both the right to set reasonable citizenship qualifications as well as to alter its basic law, so long as a true moral evil is not involved. This is nowhere near a moral wrong.
Democrats don't like this idea, as the presumption is that many illegals support them. All right, illegals and their children may lean Democrat. If so, then such becomes another important issue: those not here legally have no right to influence our political system regardless of their personal philosophical leaning. Such things are, at the least, improper and at the most, downright immoral. No non-American citizen has the right to influence the direction of our country. To our libertarian friends we ask: is this really any different than the US attempting to interfere with the internal workings of other countries?
This is not xenophobic. Anyone who wants to become an American citizen who is no threat to our nation ought to be allowed to become citizens: relatively open borders are not a bad thing. But come in through the front door. Because coming in through the back is itself suspect behavior, and grounds alone for denying anyone the rights of legal citizenship.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Michigan Primary Vote
Mike Cox, Pete Hoekstra, Mike Bouchard, Rick Snyder. Who should a good conservative support?
Cox has the Right to Life endorsement, and that's important. But Hoekstra insists he's pro-life too, and Bo
None of the other elections in Wayne County matter very much to the right wing because, as a rule, the winner of the Democratic Primary will be the general election victor and we have interest in them. But for the governor's race, our votes may actually matter.
Seeing as Bouchard is not likely to win, place, or show, it apparently comes down to Mike Cox or Pete Hoekstra. So as Right to Life has gotten behind Mr. Cox, he is probably the best choice.
Cox has the Right to Life endorsement, and that's important. But Hoekstra insists he's pro-life too, and Bo
None of the other elections in Wayne County matter very much to the right wing because, as a rule, the winner of the Democratic Primary will be the general election victor and we have interest in them. But for the governor's race, our votes may actually matter.
Seeing as Bouchard is not likely to win, place, or show, it apparently comes down to Mike Cox or Pete Hoekstra. So as Right to Life has gotten behind Mr. Cox, he is probably the best choice.
Monday, August 2, 2010
Abortion Still Matters
It was sad to see the Detroit News, in an editorial yesterday about tomorrow's primary elections here in Michigan, lament that the abortion issue has apparently come to play a major role in the polling. Unions have poured money into the effort to have East Lansing Mayor Verg Bernero win the Democratic gubernatorial race in great part because they assert he will stand stronger for the right to abortion than Andy Dillon. The paper claims that the abortion issue should be put on the back burner so that more emphasis can be placed on job creation.
To hear such shallow talk is not shocking, yet when it comes from the Detroit News it becomes especially galling. We realize, too, that the activists using the issue to promote Bernero are using it wrongly, to wit, in support of the practice. But the bottom line must be that we never give up on the goal of ending abortion, and ironically, it is the unions and not conservative stalwarts such as normally found at the News that have made it a critical point in this election cycle. They see the importance of the issue. Why should the right, particularly in this case, not see that abortion stays a highlighted issue up to and until it is ended?
A single human life is more important than any number of jobs. Yet when the News editorial writers insist that job creation must be placed ahead of life issues they display an attitude which places electoral success ahead of the more important questions which face the body politic. What respect we show for humanity and human life is far more important than the immediate gratification of job seekers or political aspirants. Indeed, a greater respect for life will quite naturally lead to a greater interest in those quality of life issues under which job creation is to be found.
The proverbial cart must not be placed in front of the horse. Once we do that, all we do is topple the cart. First things first, Detroit News. The rest will come along for the ride.
To hear such shallow talk is not shocking, yet when it comes from the Detroit News it becomes especially galling. We realize, too, that the activists using the issue to promote Bernero are using it wrongly, to wit, in support of the practice. But the bottom line must be that we never give up on the goal of ending abortion, and ironically, it is the unions and not conservative stalwarts such as normally found at the News that have made it a critical point in this election cycle. They see the importance of the issue. Why should the right, particularly in this case, not see that abortion stays a highlighted issue up to and until it is ended?
A single human life is more important than any number of jobs. Yet when the News editorial writers insist that job creation must be placed ahead of life issues they display an attitude which places electoral success ahead of the more important questions which face the body politic. What respect we show for humanity and human life is far more important than the immediate gratification of job seekers or political aspirants. Indeed, a greater respect for life will quite naturally lead to a greater interest in those quality of life issues under which job creation is to be found.
The proverbial cart must not be placed in front of the horse. Once we do that, all we do is topple the cart. First things first, Detroit News. The rest will come along for the ride.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Vanity is not a Virtue
A California woman has died as a result of silicone injections to her posterior. The stuff she allowed injected into her body were apparently industrial grade rather than the medical grade commonly used in capsule form. But it is fair to ask whether that actually makes a difference in terms of the outcome (a young woman died) or with regards to the question of whether we should seek such vulgar ways of altering our bodies for little more than vanity.
This is not to let societal judgments of what a good body is off the hook. We cannot doubt that the woman in question was seeking to make her body seem more like the ideal which reflects the opinion of much of our current society. But two things are at stake here: our own outlook on beauty, and the pressures of society to look good.
The correct answer to the second question is: damn society. In terms of natural physical appearance, you are what you are and there is only so much you can do about it. Exercise, eat better, and that's the best you can do. One should not even rule out invasive techniques such as surgery, we may suppose, but only as a matter of last resort. Some people are just built certain ways, such as having small butts.
Which leads to the first question. Don't ever let society tell you what is right unless it is in fact right by any objective opinion. No one of us has any say in how our DNA comes together. If it can and must be fixed such as with a cancer or other debilitating condition, then get it fixed. Otherwise, tell society to go suck eggs. There is no point to being bullied over something which is not your fault.
After a point, we are who we are. We are as responsible for accepting that as much as society is for letting us alone in the way God made us. The real shame here is that authorities are - properly enough, so far as it goes - treating the ones who injected the silicone as the only evil actors in this matter. Perhaps they are the only evil ones. Still, vanity has played her part. Unfortunately, we can only now pray for the soul of the girl who thought the world's opinion of her physical self more important than the person she actually is.
Was.
This is not to let societal judgments of what a good body is off the hook. We cannot doubt that the woman in question was seeking to make her body seem more like the ideal which reflects the opinion of much of our current society. But two things are at stake here: our own outlook on beauty, and the pressures of society to look good.
The correct answer to the second question is: damn society. In terms of natural physical appearance, you are what you are and there is only so much you can do about it. Exercise, eat better, and that's the best you can do. One should not even rule out invasive techniques such as surgery, we may suppose, but only as a matter of last resort. Some people are just built certain ways, such as having small butts.
Which leads to the first question. Don't ever let society tell you what is right unless it is in fact right by any objective opinion. No one of us has any say in how our DNA comes together. If it can and must be fixed such as with a cancer or other debilitating condition, then get it fixed. Otherwise, tell society to go suck eggs. There is no point to being bullied over something which is not your fault.
After a point, we are who we are. We are as responsible for accepting that as much as society is for letting us alone in the way God made us. The real shame here is that authorities are - properly enough, so far as it goes - treating the ones who injected the silicone as the only evil actors in this matter. Perhaps they are the only evil ones. Still, vanity has played her part. Unfortunately, we can only now pray for the soul of the girl who thought the world's opinion of her physical self more important than the person she actually is.
Was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
